DETROIT, MI -- Groups of 25 Republicans, over 50 corporations and 16 states this week joined dozens of organizations and individuals who have filed briefs with the U.S. 6th Court of Appeals in Michigan's landmark gay marriage case.

The Cincinnati-based court, which covers Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Tennessee, is hearing the state's appeal of a March federal court decision that struck down a voter-approved gay marriage ban.

The group of Republicans, most of them former members of the Michigan legislature, argued in favor of allowing gay marriage, even calling the position a conservative one.

"Deeply-held social, cultural, and religious tenets lead sincere and fair-minded people to take the opposite view," the group wrote. "However, no matter how strongly or sincerely they are held, the law is clear that such views cannot serve as the basis for denying a certain class of people the benefits of marriage in the absence of a legitimate fact-based governmental goal."

The group also included three past members of Congress, Ohio lawmakers and other GOP leaders, among them former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz, former chairman of the Republican National Committee Kenneth Mehlman and former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party Greg McNeilly.

"To the extent that the government acts in ways that affect individual freedom in matters of family and child-rearing, it should promote family-supportive values like responsibility, fidelity, commitment, and stability, but that such considerations cannot be determined based solely on history and tradition," the group argued. "... There is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples." (Full brief here.)

A group of employers, among them major corporations including Google, eBay and Starbucks, also argued in favor of allowing gay marriage in a Monday brief.

"States like Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, whose laws or constitutions prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, require us to differentiate among similarly situated employees to our detriment," the employers wrote.

"As a result, our ability to grow and maintain a diverse workplace is hampered, as is our ability to grow and maintain our business. We find ourselves forced to implement policies inconsistent with our stated corporate principles. We must operate in a complicated landscape of laws and human resources regulations that increases our administrative costs and, in the end, harms our businesses." (Full brief here.)

Also weighing in on the matter in a Monday brief: Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Washington D.C.

"The institution of marriage is strengthened when unnecessary and harmful barriers are removed, and our communities are enriched when all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in civic life," the group of states argued. (Full brief here.)

Arguments against for continuing to prohibit same-sex marriage have also been filed in amicus briefs over the past several months.

The Michigan Catholic Conference argued last month that U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman's March ruling that declared the ban unconstitutional and briefly allowed same-sex marriages to take place went against the will of voters, who approved the ban in 2004.

"The decision to set aside Michigan’s choices regarding family relationships, outside of the political process, was a usurpation of power, unauthorized by any article or amendment of the United States Constitution," the organization argued. "... This Court should reaffirm Michigan’s sovereign right to govern the domestic relationships of its citizens." (Full brief here.)

He argued that Friedman's decision to override the will of voters, "demeans democracy," quoting an opinion written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in upholding the affirmative action ban, which was also approved by voters and initially shot down by the courts.

"It denies each of those voters the dignity of a meaningful vote, labels each with the stigma of irrationality, and treats Michigan’s electorate as incapable of deciding this profound and sensitive issue," Schuette argued.

The appeals court on Monday scheduled oral arguments in the gay marriage case to be presented Aug. 6 at 1 p.m.

Aaron Lindstrom of the Michigan attorney general's office is set to argue on behalf of the state.

Carole Stanyar is scheduled to present arguments for the Hazel Park couple who sued the state over their inability to jointly adopt their three children without a legal marriage in Michigan.

Each side will get 30 minutes to present arguments to a three-judge panel.

The three judges who'll make up the panel won't be named until two weeks prior to the hearing.

The court noted that the panel may choose to cancel oral arguments and issue a decision based on filed briefs.